Though it's very likely Google will serve ads in Glass in the future, I think it's very good to lay this rules now. If this becomes a thing and has a reasonable user base, they can discuss how to display ads in a non-intrusive way.

While this is going to be a pretty cool product, if done right, there's probably going to be a pretty quick ban from using them from driving, I would think. Have they discussed any ideas they have for keeping people from using them at the wrong times?

I see this as a prototype for licensed tech that will ultimately be available in most types of prescription spectacles, but it's closer to release than I imagined, I must admit.

And by the way does anyone actually think that the ban on advertising via the API is anything except Google peeing on the ground to mark its own territory? This is altruism only insofar as it protects the early market and puts in place a large user base to which Google can later serve its own ads.

I'm honestly surprised at the lack of an NFC tag or something similar on it. One of the awesome things about NFC is hassle free Bluetooth pairing. It seems like something Google would be pushing for in their own gadgets.

Then again, if it was just on there as a tag it wouldn't really be important information for developers or people to know in advance. It'd really only be useful during the initial pairing of the device and not past that. So I could see it being present but not worth mentioning. I guess time will tell on that though.

While this is going to be a pretty cool product, if done right, there's probably going to be a pretty quick ban from using them from driving, I would think. Have they discussed any ideas they have for keeping people from using them at the wrong times?

How about a graphically written common sense clause? "if you are dumb enough to look at porn on the glass while driving, we will not cover the costs of your brains being scraped off the road by local authorities" or something to that effect.

I have been thinking of getting a pair, but I won't if it has ads core to the experience, from google or otherwise. This isn't like gmail. I am paying for a product which is basically a camera on my face that has extra features.

While this is going to be a pretty cool product, if done right, there's probably going to be a pretty quick ban from using them from driving, I would think. Have they discussed any ideas they have for keeping people from using them at the wrong times?

That would be unfortunate, since a heads-up GPS display -- done properly -- would be much safer than looking at a GPS device. Voice nav is pretty good, but when turns come close together and and road signs don't match the "official" names on GPS, sometimes you have to look.

Of course, I have no doubts there will be people who try to watch Game of Thrones while driving, but you don't need Google Glass for that.

While this is going to be a pretty cool product, if done right, there's probably going to be a pretty quick ban from using them from driving, I would think. Have they discussed any ideas they have for keeping people from using them at the wrong times?

People already use their phones, some text while driving regardless of if it is illegal or not. So I don't think a ban of devices like Google Glass will make much of an impact other than generate revenue from fines.

I think Glass would be more safer since you aren't taking your eyes off the road, and I don't think it should be considered any different than the HUDs that are now on some luxury cars.

That would be unfortunate, since a heads-up GPS display -- done properly -- would be much safer than looking at a GPS device. Voice nav is pretty good, but when turns come close together and and road signs don't match the "official" names on GPS, sometimes you have to look.

Of course, I have no doubts there will be people who try to watch Game of Thrones while driving, but you don't need Google Glass for that.

Even more so if your car could transmit fuel levels, current speed, radio information, etc... Looking down at the dashboard takes your eyes off of the road, and taking your eyes at the wrong second can prove fatal.

While this is going to be a pretty cool product, if done right, there's probably going to be a pretty quick ban from using them from driving, I would think. Have they discussed any ideas they have for keeping people from using them at the wrong times?

How about a graphically written common sense clause? "if you are dumb enough to look at porn on the glass while driving, we will not cover the costs of your brains being scraped off the road by local authorities" or something to that effect.

If the only brains being smeared across the pavement were the idiots I'd be perfectly fine with this. *IF*

"an HD display that will be "the equivalent of a 25 inch high definition screen from eight feet away.... The optimal resolution for photos and video will be 640×360, "

Why is the resolution for full-frame images only 640x360 if it's the equivalent of a high definition screen? Those two specs seem contradictory.

Because the pixels will be so close to your face you won't be able to tell them apart. Additionally, the "monitor" will be so small, that 640x360 will *be* high definition. (Look up details of why Apples "retina" display is called *retina* display.

HD may mean 1080p, but you don't have to be 1080p to *be* high definition.

"an HD display that will be "the equivalent of a 25 inch high definition screen from eight feet away.... The optimal resolution for photos and video will be 640×360, "

Why is the resolution for full-frame images only 640x360 if it's the equivalent of a high definition screen? Those two specs seem contradictory.

Not when we're talking about things like this. It has to do with tweaks of perspective and such. I honestly don't know the science behind it to explain well enough, but I have seen the effect first hand.

Though not necessarily exact, this XKCD might be helpful in some ways:http://xkcd.com/1080/ (link only; it's a large image)

Because the pixels will be so close to your face you won't be able to tell them apart. Additionally, the "monitor" will be so small, that 640x360 will *be* high definition. (Look up details of why Apples "retina" display is called *retina* display.

HD may mean 1080p, but you don't have to be 1080p to *be* high definition.

It's fairly close but 640x360 doesn't quite meet Retina specs for a 25" display at 8'. I make the required resolution to be 768x460. I don't think that the distance from your eyes makes any difference because Glass has optics which make the display appear to be a lot further away than it is.

"an HD display that will be "the equivalent of a 25 inch high definition screen from eight feet away.... The optimal resolution for photos and video will be 640×360, "

Why is the resolution for full-frame images only 640x360 if it's the equivalent of a high definition screen? Those two specs seem contradictory.

Because the pixels will be so close to your face you won't be able to tell them apart. Additionally, the "monitor" will be so small, that 640x360 will *be* high definition. (Look up details of why Apples "retina" display is called *retina* display.

HD may mean 1080p, but you don't have to be 1080p to *be* high definition.

Well, high def is much more than 640 x360. That's not high def by any standard. It doesn't even make sense to describe this as high def if we can't get the use of high def out of it, as we won't, because of the spec of 25" at 8'.

There's not much point of using 720p if all we can see is 250p. The only reasonable reason I can think of recording at the higher resolutions, both for still and video, is because you can load then into other players capable of resolving it, because, clearly, Glass itself can't.

Because the pixels will be so close to your face you won't be able to tell them apart. Additionally, the "monitor" will be so small, that 640x360 will *be* high definition. (Look up details of why Apples "retina" display is called *retina* display.

HD may mean 1080p, but you don't have to be 1080p to *be* high definition.

It's fairly close but 640x360 doesn't quite meet Retina specs for a 25" display at 8'. I make the required resolution to be 768x460. I don't think that the distance from your eyes makes any difference because Glass has optics which make the display appear to be a lot further away than it is.

For a 25" screen at 8', you can't see more than that, at best, and that's ideal. I'm assuming that Google themselves know of some limitations that keeps it to the lower number.

How about a graphically written common sense clause? "if you are dumb enough to look at porn on the glass while driving, we will not cover the costs of your brains being scraped off the road by local authorities" or something to that effect.

Inefficient if I'm the one holding the body of my child that was just hit by said porn-watching dumbass. I'm not one to vote for any kind of oppressive legislation, but in this case I'm all for erring on the side of safety. Vehicles are simply too big a threat to innocent bystanders to not regulate Glasses while driving.

I'm having a hard time imagining the average Glass user consuming 16GB of content at a time without streaming from a phone. If it's primarily for recording, interesting that they'd include so much space instead of investing in real-time compression.

Whatever Google has in mind, it seems like they're willing to make a real investment in this thing. Interesting.

How about a graphically written common sense clause? "if you are dumb enough to look at porn on the glass while driving, we will not cover the costs of your brains being scraped off the road by local authorities" or something to that effect.

Inefficient if I'm the one holding the body of my child that was just hit by said porn-watching dumbass. I'm not one to vote for any kind of oppressive legislation, but in this case I'm all for erring on the side of safety. Vehicles are simply too big a threat to innocent bystanders to not regulate Glasses while driving.

There's a fairly easy way to ensure video cannot be viewed while in motion. Use a combination of GPS and accelerometer/pedometer functionality where if above a certain low threshold the video automatically pauses and/or closes. You don't have to have blanket bans on things to implement safety features, particularly when the glasses could have very useful things like built in navigation overlay, or as someone else said, dashboard information when tethered to your car.

I'm having a hard time imagining the average Glass user consuming 16GB of content at a time without streaming from a phone. If it's primarily for recording, interesting that they'd include so much space instead of investing in real-time compression.

Whatever Google has in mind, it seems like they're willing to make a real investment in this thing. Interesting.

Assuming they're hoping this will attract a lot of apps, 16GB really isn't as much as you'd think. Take TomTom (GPS app) as an example. It has an offline map and is about 1.5GB to download, likely more to actually install on the phone. Now the most ideal situation would be for them to work with all the cell phone manufacturers to share data from the phone to Google Glass to wirelessly extend content capacity, but I suspect that would be a long hard road to travel getting all of them to cooperate, particularly Apple after recent events. Initially, I suspect all apps and video content will be stuck in that 16GB space.

It's too bad that they don't define what 'typical use' is. With cell phones we have a good (if somewhat fuzzy) understanding, but seeing as this product doesn't exist in the wild, nor anything like it, how are we to know what 'typical' is?

I'm sure that this isn't what they mean, but "typical" could mean something such as, "User's typically use Google Glass for 10 minutes before the battery dies, and then wear the device for the rest of the day until they get back to their home or office".

Well, high def is much more than 640 x360. That's not high def by any standard..

No this is actually consistent with the more correct optical definition of resolution, which is not defined in pixels but rather angular resolution. Remember glass isn't a display in front of your eyes, its an optical relay imaging through your cornea. They're giving you a distance and a size because its otherwise kind of hard to describe a virtual display that doesn't really exist except as an optical illusion created by the optics.

That would be unfortunate, since a heads-up GPS display -- done properly -- would be much safer than looking at a GPS device. Voice nav is pretty good, but when turns come close together and and road signs don't match the "official" names on GPS, sometimes you have to look.

Of course, I have no doubts there will be people who try to watch Game of Thrones while driving, but you don't need Google Glass for that.

Even more so if your car could transmit fuel levels, current speed, radio information, etc... Looking down at the dashboard takes your eyes off of the road, and taking your eyes at the wrong second can prove fatal.

While I agree that using Google Glass could be safer, I think that concentrating your attention on the "HUD" would still be considered "taking your eyes off the road". It really doesn't solve that problem, it only potentially makes it more safe.

I'm having a hard time imagining the average Glass user consuming 16GB of content at a time without streaming from a phone. If it's primarily for recording, interesting that they'd include so much space instead of investing in real-time compression.

Whatever Google has in mind, it seems like they're willing to make a real investment in this thing. Interesting.

Assuming they're hoping this will attract a lot of apps, 16GB really isn't as much as you'd think. Take TomTom (GPS app) as an example. It has an offline map and is about 1.5GB to download, likely more to actually install on the phone. Now the most ideal situation would be for them to work with all the cell phone manufacturers to share data from the phone to Google Glass to wirelessly extend content capacity, but I suspect that would be a long hard road to travel getting all of them to cooperate, particularly Apple after recent events. Initially, I suspect all apps and video content will be stuck in that 16GB space.

Uh, this is google that you are talking about. They have every incentive not to play nicely with Apple phones. Since they have a great deal of control of the functionality built into Android, they have the opportunity to roll out a new OS release or app that does the data storage and/or runs apps from the phone.

Initially, I was thinking 16GB was low but now that I remember that this is not really a standalone devise, that seems like a more reasonable spec.

I had read that the MyGlass app controls the GPS and texting functionality. If it requires Android version X.X.X to run then where would that leave iPhone users? I've been pretty excited for these, but I wouldn't buy an entirely new phone just to use core functionality.

While this is going to be a pretty cool product, if done right, there's probably going to be a pretty quick ban from using them from driving, I would think. Have they discussed any ideas they have for keeping people from using them at the wrong times?

Actually I could see this being pretty useful on a motorcycle, yes motorcycle. I currently have my iPhone in a dock connected via BT to in-helmet speakers. If I didn't need to look down to see an intersection or direction that could be super useful while driving. So in the right situation this could actually be pretty useful.

There's a fairly easy way to ensure video cannot be viewed while in motion. Use a combination of GPS and accelerometer/pedometer functionality where if above a certain low threshold the video automatically pauses and/or closes. You don't have to have blanket bans on things to implement safety features, particularly when the glasses could have very useful things like built in navigation overlay, or as someone else said, dashboard information when tethered to your car.

What's simpler?

Trying to enforce and verify that devices like Google Glass have working features that prevent use while driving, as well as prevent tampering by the end-user to bypass any of said mechanisms.

Or just tacking things like Google Glass onto existing laws against distracted driving?